PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS EMPLOYMENT ORGANIZATION (PBMEO) VS.

PHILIPPINE
BLOOMING MILLS CO., INC.
G.R. No. L-31195 June 5, 1973
FACTS:
Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization (PBMEO) decided to stage a mass
demonstration at Malacaang in protest against alleged abuses of the Pasig police and that
they informed the Philippine Blooming Mills Inc. (Company) of their proposed
demonstration.
The company called a meeting with the officers of PBMEO after learning the about the
planned mass. During the meeting, the planned demonstration was confirmed by the union,
explaining further that the demonstration has nothing to do with the Company because the
union has no quarrel or dispute with Management. It was stressed out that the
demonstration was not a strike against the company but was in fact an exercise of the
laborers inalienable constitutional right to freedom of expression, freedom of speech and
freedom for petition for redress of grievances.

Company informed PBMEO that the demonstration is an inalienable right of the union
guaranteed by the Constitution but emphasized, however, that any demonstration for that
matter should not unduly prejudice the normal operation of the Company. For which
reason, the Company warned the PBMEO representatives that workers who without
previous leave of absence approved by the Company, particularly , the officers present who
are the organizers of the demonstration, who shall fail to report for work shall be
dismissed.

Another meeting was convoked Company. It reiterated and appealed to the PBMEO
representatives that while all workers may join the Malacaang demonstration, those from
the 1st and regular shifts should not absent themselves to participate, otherwise, they
would be dismissed. Since it was too late to cancel the plan, the rally took place and the
officers of the PBMEO were eventually dismissed for a violation of the No Strike and No
Lockout clause of their Collective Bargaining
The lower court decided in favor of the company and the officers of the PBMEO were found
guilty of bargaining in bad faith. Their motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied
by the Court of Industrial Relations for being filed two days late.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the workers who joined the strike violated the CBA
2. Whether the company is guilty of unfair labor practice for dismissing its employees

RULING:
1. No. The rights of free expression, free assembly and petition, are not only civil rights
but also political rights essential to man's enjoyment of his life, to his happiness and
to his full and complete fulfillment. Thru these freedoms the citizens can participate
not merely in the periodic establishment of the government through their suffrage
but also in the administration of public affairs as well as in the discipline of abusive
public officers. The citizen is accorded these rights so that he can appeal to the
appropriate governmental officers or agencies for redress and protection as well as
for the imposition of the lawful sanctions on erring public officers and employees.
While the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of human rights
over property rights is recognized.

Because these freedoms are "delicate and
vulnerable, as well as supremely precious in our society" and the "threat of
sanctions may deter their exercise almost as potently as the actual application
of sanctions," they "need breathing space to survive," permitting government
regulation only "with narrow specificity." Property and property rights can be lost
thru prescription; but human rights are imprescriptible. If human rights are
extinguished by the passage of time, then the Bill of Rights is a useless attempt
to limit the power of government and ceases to be an efficacious shield against the
tyranny of officials, of majorities, of the influential and powerful, and of
oligarchs political, economic or otherwise.
In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free expression and of assembly
occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and
vitality of our civil and political institutions; and such priority "gives these
liberties the sanctity and the sanction not permitting dubious intrusions."
The freedoms of speech and of the press as well as of peaceful assembly and of
petition for redress of grievances are absolute when directed against public
officials or "when exercised in relation to our right to choose the men and women
by whom we shall be governed.

2. Company is the one guilty of unfair labor practice. Because the refusal on its part to
permit all its employees and workers to join the mass demonstration against alleged
police abuses and the subsequent separation of the eight (8) workers from the
service constituted an unconstitutional restraint on the freedom of expression,
freedom of assembly and freedom petition for redress of grievances, the company
committed an unfair labor practice defined in Section 4(a-1) in relation to Section 3
of Republic Act No. 875, otherwise known as the Industrial Peace Act. Section 3 of
Republic Act No. 8 guarantees to the employees the right "to engage in concert
activities for ... mutual aid or protection"; while Section 4(a-1) regards as an unfair
labor practice for an employer interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the
exercise their rights guaranteed in Section Three."